Minutes of the

Minutes o= f the

MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE

May 3, 2004=

<= /span>

APPROVED

PRES= ENT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bill Bedford, Monika Brannick, Judy Dolan, Bonnie Ann Dowd, MaryAnn Drinan, Martha Evans, Brent Gowen, Anne Hohman, Barb Neault Kelber,&nb= sp; Doug Key, Teresa Laughlin, Stan Levy, Dennis Lutz, Maria Miller, Mar= ilee Nebelsick-Tagg, Sue Norton, Steve Spear, Sara Thompson, Fari Towfiq, Rocco Versaci, Lori Waite

ABSE= NT: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Judy Cater, Katie Townsend-Merino

GUES= TS: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bob Gilson, Sherry Gordon, Robert Jones, Shannon Lienhart, Gil Noble, Susan Sno= w

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

CALL= TO ORDER: &= nbsp; The meeting was called to order by the president, Steve Spear, at 2:00 p.m., in Room SU-30.

<= /span>

Proxy Votes: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Ann Dowd announced the following proxy votes:

= &nb= sp; = Bonnie Dowd holding a proxy for Katie Townsend-Merino

= &nb= sp; = Doug Key holding a proxy for Judy Cater and for Fari Towfiq after 3:00 p.m.=

<= /span>

Facu= lty Senate Elections: Stan L= evy announced that as a result of the recent Senate elections, the following faculty members have been elected as new Senators:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rosa Antonecchia

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bill Bedford, adjunct representative

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika Brannick

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Ann Dowd

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bob Gilson

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sherry Gordon

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Marilee Nebelsick-Tagg

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sue Norton

Facu= lty Tea: &nb= sp; = Steve Spear announced that the Faculty Tea has been moved from D-10 to D-5.<= /o:p>

= &nb= sp; =

Appr= oval of Minutes: &n= bsp; Bonnie Dowd stated that Chris Barkley has provided a copy of her statement indicat= ing that some omissions occurred when the electronic version of her statement w= as copied into the = April 26, 2004, unapproved minutes. After some discussion, Senate members agreed that individual’s= statements must be included in the minutes as original stated. However, because the corrections n= oted by Chris refer to Monika Brannick by name, the Senate asks that Monika and = Bonnie Dowd listen to the audio tape and change the unapproved minutes to reflect = what was actually read into the record on April 26th.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; A reference was also made to Motion 5 of the April 26, 2004, minutes where the Senate requests that the district release certain emails under the Freedom of Information Act. The motion as previously stated should have reflected the = requests as under the California Code of Public Records not Freedom of Information Act.

<= /span>

The minutes of April 26, 2004, were approved as amended= .

<= /span>

Dr. Amador: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Spear reported that at his weekly meeting with Dr. Amador, the upcoming Fac= ulty Tea was discussed.

<= /span>

Gove= rning Board: &= nbsp; Because Steve was not at the Governing Board meeting, he asked if any Senate member= who had attended was able to report on the events of that meeting. Bonnie Dowd = reported that she delivered to the board a petition signed by 355 plus members of Palomar’s campus constituency requesting that the board appoint Dean Jackson as Interim President. Bonnie expressed concern with the fact that a board member made dero= gatory public statements about Dean Jackson’s leadership as dean. She also noted the irony of this g= iven that the board has repeatedly not allowed certain issues to be addressed at public meetings because they were “personnel.”

Stra= tegic Planning

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; There was no report.

Inst= ructional Planning

Coun= cil: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sue Norton reported that the Instructional Planning Council sent forth priority needs, which included improving classroom facilities and adding 13 new facu= lty positions for 2005-06, with the understanding that if one of the positions = was not filled, the district would pull from the next ranked positions below th= e 13 taken them in order.

Admi= nistrative Services

Plan= ning Council: = ; Judy Dolan indicated that the members of the Administrative Services Planning Council will be meeting again on May 6. The group recently discussed the is= sue of the Administrative Services area not having sufficient funds to pay for vehicles and perhaps having to charge it back to departments. No decision h= as been made yet as the issue is still being discussed.

Reve= nue Allocation

Comm= ittee: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bonnie Dowd reported that the Revenue Allocation Committee is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, May 3^rd. = She stated that although administrative position appointments are the responsib= ility of the Governing Board, it is troubling that the Board is approving an inte= rim replacement for our current Vice President of Finance & Administrative Services without even having announced to the campus community that Jerry Patton had resigned. Bonnie s= aid she read about his resignation in the San Diego Union Tribune. <= /span>

BP 1= 11: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Rocco Versaci provided copies of a proposed amended version of BP 111, Acts of Violence or Hate Speech. He asked Senate members to review the document for possible approval.

Moti= on 1 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MS Brannick, Dolan: To suspend the agenda to address action item I, TERB Procedures.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Spear asked that the senate first deal with action item A, Committee Appointments.

Moti= on 1 amended = MSC Brannick, Dolan: To suspend the agenda to address action item I, TERB Procedures, after acting on item A, Committee Appointments/Elections.<= /o:p>

TERB Election

Resu= lts: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; = Stan Levy announced the following results of the recent elections to the Tenure & Evaluations Review Board:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Counseling or Library/Media Center

P.J. DeMaris, Coun= seling

Judy Cater, Library (alternate)

<= /span>

Mathematics and the Natural & Health Sciences Division

Doug Key, Earth Sc= iences

Cathy Jain, Earth Sciences (alternate)

<= /span>

Languages & Literature Division

Pam McDonough, Eng= lish

<= /span>

There was a tie fo= r the alternate position in the Languages & Literature Division. A run-off election will be held in the fall semester.

<= /span>

At-Large Position<= o:p>

Wendy Metzger, Mat= h

Acad= emic Technology

Coor= dinator: &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

Moti= on 2 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Laughlin, Nebelsick-Tagg: The Faculty Senate recommends the appointment of Bonnie Ann Dowd as the Academic Technology Resources Coordinator for a three-year term.

Prof= essional Development

Coor= dinator:

Moti= on 3 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Key, Miller: The Faculty Senate recommends the appointment of Lori Waite as= the Professional Development Coordinator for a two-year term.=

Curr= icunet: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Spear announced that as a result of the approval of Curricunet, three 20% faculty reassigned time positions with summer stipends need to be filled. T= he Committee on Committees chair will send out an announcement as soon as possible.

Lear= ning Outcomes

Task Force: &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Spear reported that the positions on the Learning Outcomes Task Force will = be voted on next week by Senate members. Senators were encouraged to read the letters of interest prior to Monday’s meeting.

Comm= ittee

Appo= intments:

Moti= on 4 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Laughlin: Faculty Senate acceptance of the results of the ballot for = the following committee appointment:

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Dean of the Math and the Natural & Health Sciences Division Hiring Committee=

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Daniel Finkenthal

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Shannon Lienhart

Facu= lty Senate Minutes

of <= st1:date Year=3D"2004" Day=3D"26" Month=3D"4" w:st=3D"on">4/26/04:

Moti= on 5 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Kelber, Hohman: The Faculty Senate directs its Secretary, Bonnie Ann Dowd, = and Senator Monika Brannick to listen to the audio tape of the April 26, 2004, meeting to cl= arify a written submission to those minutes by former Senate

President Chris Ba= rkley. If the written submission matches what was read on the audio tape, the appr= oved minutes should reflect the changes.

Moti= on 6 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Versaci: That Motion 5 of the April 26, 2004, minutes, reflect a change to the wor= ding from the Freedom of Information Act to the California Code of Public Record= s.

Moti= on 7 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Dowd, Versaci: To extend the meeting until 3:30 p.m.

TERB Procedures: &n= bsp; The Professional Procedures committee and Senate Vice President, at the request= of the Faculty Council, had requested that TERB attend today’s Senate meeting to participate in the TERB procedures discussion. Unfortunately, TE= RB is meeting at 3:00 p.m. so they will not be coming to the Senate meeting. Concern was expressed about going forward with a report from Professional Procedures without having TERB present. Also, some members o= f the committee voiced concern that no one had responded to the committee chair to accept or decline the invitation.

Steve Spear turned= the meeting over to Sara Thompson.

<= /span>

Marilee distribute= d the following report/information on behalf of the Professional Procedures commi= ttee regarding TERB policy and procedures:

<= /span>

Based upon feedback gathered by the Professional Proce= dures Committee the following areas of concern regarding the TERB policy (BP173) = and TERB procedure (P173) have been identified: (Note: Page references are t= o the printed version of BP 173 and Procedure 173 in the last printed Faculty Manual (i.e= ., 2001-02)…however, on-line version is in agreement with the printed ve= rsion on the specific items addressed below.)

<= /span>

1. Policy and procedure 173 both stat= e that policies and procedures related to TERB have been developed in accordance w= ith Education Code through AB1725 and Palomar Board Policy 173. The BP173 states “Revisions = to the Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures are considered to be an Academ= ic and Professional Matter.” (page 72)

2. Procedure 173 indicates that the T= ERB (i.e., the Board itself) is a standing operational committee reporting to t= he Superintendent/President (page 81). The BP 173 states that Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures = are considered to be an Academic and Professional Matter which then places this under the purview of the Faculty Senate (page 28). The job description of the coordin= ator states that the coordinator reports administratively to the VP of instructi= on (page 82).

3. Definitions of faculty are not the= same as definitions used in approved version of the Faculty Constitution. (Recom= mend that definitions be consistent between documents.) (page 72)

4. TERB procedures were developed in categories with specific procedures for each faculty group: Procedures for = Peer Review of Tenured Faculty; Procedures for Evaluation Review of Temporary and Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Procedures for Adjunct Faculty. It is important to note that all categories do not follow the exact same procedure. However all three have a step proc= ess with regard to deadlines that implies a “collegial process” including resolution rather than a punitive process (pages 72-82). All of the steps are done through = the committee chair. <= /span>

5.&n= bsp; In addition,= if peer reviews for tenured faculty are not in on time (page 78; see process <= o:p>

under Section F, Peer, last paragraph). The TERB coordinator is to contact the peer committee chair. The TERB coordinator, Committee Ch= air, and evaluee will meet to set new deadline dates. Throughout the entire process, it = does not state that a dean is notified or involved in extending the deadlines.

6.&n= bsp; The categori= es of probationary faculty and temporary and non-tenured track faculty

may challenge either the randomly selected faculty member or the faculty member selected by the department. (Page 74, Section B) However, the = same provision does not exist for tenured faculty in procedure 173 (page = 76, Section B). The major reason = for the difference with the tenured faculty is because the department ch= air designates him/herself or a designee as committee chair and the evaluee cho= oses the other member or asks TERB to select a second committee member. There is no provision in any of the faculty groups for the evaluee to challenge the department chair or designee. <= /p>

7. According to procedure 173, TERB w= ill “critically review all probationary faculty evaluations that results in an overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory evaluations”; however, there is no statement to indicate that TERB reviews only substandard evaluations (page 81, A – however, this statement is repeated several times in ot= her sections). <= /span>

8. The TERB will review evalua= tions of tenure faculty in the following circumstances: overall rating of needs improvement or unsatisfactory; committee refers evaluation to TERB and the = dean refers to TERB…however, the third circumstance is only if inconsisten= cies in the process exists (pg. 81, Item B).&nb= sp; There is no statement to indicate that TERB reviews only subs= tandard evaluations. (Page 81, Item B= )

9. According to Section F, Item 4, additional material based upon “significant personal experience” may be presented to the committee chair for inclusion in the evaluation; ho= wever, the material must be submitted by the deadline. In addition, all information must = be reviewed by the entire peer committee before the deadline (page 78 for Peer – however, this issue is repeated within each evaluation process).

10. TERB must convene each fall and sp= ring to adopt its calendar for semester due dates (page 73)

11. Section G (page 78) states that the evaluee will have access to all information used in the evaluation process.

12. Faculty members being evaluated “may initiate due process proceedings at any time.” (TERB, page= 78, Section G, last sentence - Also, this statement is repeated several times in other sections).

13. It appears that faculty sign their evaluation before the TERB Coordinator, Dean and V.P. Instruction rather th= an the faculty member under evaluation signing after all signatures and statem= ents have been collected.

14. Board must meet 2/month to “discuss and act on requests for changes to the written evaluation pl= an, to annually review and revise, if necessary, the policy and procedures on tenure and evaluation….. and to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of the faculty” (TERB duties page 81, Section A)<= /span>

<= /span>

15. Page 82, Section C (last paragraph= ) at least 6 members of TERB and the coordinator must be present if decisions regarding tenure or evaluation reports are made.

16. The TERB Coordinator must write a = yearly report; however, the procedure does not state specifically who the report is given to (Page 82, duties of coordinator).

17.&= nbsp; Evaluations = of the coordinator are conducted yearly; however, the procedure does not

state specifically who the evaluations are given to. (Page 82, Item C, evaluation= of coordinator.)

Marilee asked Bonn= ie Dowd as a member of the Professional Procedures committee to address the is= sue of TERB being an academic and professional matter. Bonnie reported that she= had brought a copy of the legislation relating to AB1725 with her to support the position that policies and procedures related to TERB are Academic and Professional matters and therefore under the purview of the Faculty Senate. Bonnie also cited doc= uments from the California Trustees’ organization and the California League = of Community Colleges from the 1998/1999 time period also stating this fact. In addition, Palomar’s governance structure under policy 173 states̷= 0;”Revisions to the Tenure and Evaluations Policy and Procedures are considered to be an Academic and Professional Matter.” Bonnie also referenced the fact th= at Palomar’s BP 4.5 states…”The Governing Board, through the Superintendent/President or designee, will consult with the Faculty Senate = when adopting policies and procedures on academic and professional matters…= ;” Bonnie reported this information because there has been some discussion at recent Senate meetings as to whether TERB is academic or professional. Bonn= ie referenced statements within AB1725 that states, “The clear goal of AB1725 is increased involvement of the Academic Senates, particularly in the faculty hiring and evaluation areas. The specific processes to be used are = left up to the boards to determine and implement. In essence, the Statewide Boar= d of Governors has given local boards the first opportunity to strengthen their local senates. That means to do that they will vary from district to distri= ct and that is perfectly appropriate. There is no way to implement the shared governance provisions nor does AB1725 require any specific method or proced= ure. Predefined models, whether from statewide organizations or other districts,= may not meet the specific needs of a particular district. Therefore, local boar= ds and senates must fashion increased cooperation and shared decision-making b= ased on each district’s particular history and style.”

<= /span>

Bonnie reported th= at the BP173 states that Palomar= College agreed that= TERB was an academic and professional matter.&n= bsp; Therefore, in accordance with the law, which is reflected in the Ed Code, statements referenced from Association of California Trustees and oth= ers referenced above, the committee wants to restate its position, that TERB (BP 173) and Procedure 173 are academic and professional matters and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Academic Senate.

<= /span>

Bonnie Dowd also a= dded that there is confusion within our TERB procedure (BP 173) because in one p= lace it talks about the fact that TERB is a standing operational committee repor= ting to the President. In another place it talks about reportability to the Vice President and then in others it talks about it being an academic and professional matter. Bonnie summarized by saying that given that policy dri= ves procedures, the policy clearly states that TERB is an academic and professi= onal matter.

<= /span>

Senate members once again expressed concern that the Vice President of Instruction and the TERB Coordinator were not at today’s meeting. Some felt that the TERB meet= ing scheduled for today could have been adjourned or postponed so that they and= the board would be able to be here for this discussion.

<= /span>

Barb Kelber asked = that the Senate put aside discussion on this issue for a few moments while the i= ssue from last week’s hearing could be revisited.

Moti= on 8 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Kelber, Gowen: To suspend the agenda to discuss action item E, 2002-2004 Curriculum Co-Chair appointment.

2002= -2004 Curriculum

Co-C= hair Appointment: &= nbsp; Sara Thompson thanked the Faculty Senate Investigative Task Force for their effo= rts and bringing forward a statement as well as procedures on how to proceed wi= th last week’s hearing. Sara reported that at last week’s meeting Senat= ors and those present were given an opportunity to make statements and it was agreed that the Senate would discuss any possible action at today’s meeting. In addition, at the end of the hearing, there was a motion passed = for the Senate to request the emails of Chris Barkley, Anne Voth, and Phil DeBa= rros as they relate to the issue of the Curriculum Co-Chair appointment. She add= ed that this morning she presented the Senate’s request to view those em= ails to Jerry Patton as well as a copy to Dr. Amador. Whether those emails still exist or not, this does set a prescident for determining that emails under certain circumstances can be legally obtained and legally read. She also st= ated that she hopes the result of this is that the Senate will recognize that no= one has the right to get them any other way.&n= bsp;

Moti= on 9 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MS Kelber, Gowen: The Faculty Senate has gathered information, listened to statements, and considered responses concerning the conduct of Chris Barkley during her term as Faculty Senate President. (See the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting, = April 26, 2004.)

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; The Faculty Senate concludes (in its majority?) that the findings presented by = the Senate Investigative Task Force are serious and credible. Therefore, the Se= nate formally censures Chris Barkley on the basis of the following:

· = Chris Barkley, as Faculty Senate President, lied to Teresa Laughlin to get her to apply for the Curriculum Co-Chair position in Spring, 2002.

· = The motivation for this manipulation was to keep Monika Brannick from serving another term as Co-Chair.

<= /span>

The Senate conside= rs these actions as a significant breach of ethics and a betrayal of trust on = the part of Chris Barkley during her term as Faculty Senate President. Therefor= e, the current Faculty Senate, acting in spring of 2004, recommends that Chris Barkley be denied Senate appointment to any position entailing reassigned t= ime for a period of ______ years.

<= /span>

Lengthy discussion followed on the wording of the motion. It was stated that it is important t= hat as a senate there is discussion about what kind of behavior is acceptable or not acceptable for senate leaders. There was also some discussion on whethe= r denying appointments to positions with reassigned time becomes more punitive rather than a statement of what is expected from a leader.

<= /span>

It was noted that standards should be set in case the senate faces this issue in the future.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It was suggested that perhaps the = motion should be taken as two separate motions.

<= /span>

Senate members agr= eed to amend the motion into two parts:

Moti= on 9 amended = MSCU Kelber, Gowen: The Faculty Senate has gathered information, listened to statements, and considered responses concerning the conduct of Chris Barkley during her term as Faculty Senate President. (See the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting, = April 26, 2004.)

The Faculty Senate concludes in its majority that the findings presented by the Senate Investigative Task Force are serious and credible. Therefore, the Senate formally censures Chris Barkley on the basis of the following:

· = Chris Barkley, as Faculty Senate President, manipulated Teresa Laughlin to get he= r to apply for the Curriculum Co-Chair position in Spring, 2002.

· = The motivation for this manipulation was to keep Monika Brannick from serving another term as Co-Chair.

<= /span>

The Senate conside= rs these actions as a significant breach of ethics and a betrayal of trust on = the part of Chris Barkley during her term as Faculty Senate President.

<= /span>

It was requested t= hat the motion be shown as unanimously approved. Discussion followed on the second = half of the original motion. Shannon Lienhart asked the Senate to act to protect= the interests of faculty. If someone has been shown to have violated the trust = of the faculty and to have violated the trust of the Faculty Senate, how can y= ou put that person back in a position immediately where they could do the same= thing. She added that she felt the reason the Senate should act to keep Chris Bark= ley out of Senate appointed reassigned time positions is because she felt that Chris has proven that she violated the trust of the faculty. Shannon reminded the Senate that they have to keep the trust of the faculty in mind when they vote on this issue. They need to protect that trust by not puttin= g a person who has violated that trust back into that position until the trust = has been earned again.

<= /span>

Additional discuss= ion followed on the specific time period that should be considered in the second part of the motion.

<= /span>

There was also clarification made that this motion only applies to Faculty Senate appointm= ents with reassigned time not to all faculty reassigned positions e.g., departme= nt chairmanship is not a Senate reassigned position. Senators also discussed w= hen the time period for the three years should begin.

<= /span>

Moti= on 10 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Kelber, Laughlin: The current Faculty Senate, acting in spring of 2004, recommends that Chris Barkley be denied Senate appointment to any position entailing reassigned time for a period of three years beginning fall 2004.<= o:p>

TERB Procedures: &n= bsp; Sara Thompson stated that although concern has been expressed that members of TE= RB are not present at this meeting, TERB already had a meeting scheduled and h= ave agenda items, which they must deal with today. She also feels that this is the beginning of the discussion and that there will have to be other discussions between PFF, TERB, and the Faculty Senate. Today’s meeting is not an = end to the discussion regarding TERB procedures.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika stated that she is not questioning whether or not the TERB meeting today was important, but noted that TERB hasn’t met for 15 months. Therefore, why couldn’t TERB= have rescheduled their meeting today or come to the Senate and then go back to their meeting. She added that she cannot understand given the seriousness of the problems = that they would not show up for this Senate hearing. She recommended that they be asked one more time to attend the next Senate meeting so that the issues ca= n be addressed with all.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Bill Bedford stated that TERB, in some form, is attempting to deny Senate access into its operations by pretending that it’s an operational committee = at times and an academic and professional committee at other times. Bill noted that there is responsibility that TERB recognize that it is addresses acade= mic and professional matters and therefore is answerable to the Senate.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Shannon Lienhart added that in her opinion the TERB agenda could have been arranged= to accommodate the Senate meeting such that they could have rescheduled the meeting for another time. Shannon report= ed that Colleen Weldele has asked the TERB Coordinator to change the meeting t= ime to another time because there were a lot of conflicts for today. She added = that she is concerned that the people involved in any issue are given due proces= s. Shannon is afraid that frankly it’s manipulative so that they can say it wasn’t a fair hearing because they weren’t given due process. We need to make sure they are given due process. She stated that she doesnR= 17;t understand why the Senate can’t schedule a special hearing at a time = when everybody can be there and ensure that these people are here so that faculty have an opportunity for due process by being allowed the opportunity to have questions answered regarding = TERB. Shannon asked for an open forum where discussion ha= ppens in the open and added that she should not be denied that chance or Monika a= nd that Daniel (Finkenthal) should not be denied that chance simply because the oth= er parties involved refuses to participate. She stated that although she didn’t know what the alternatives are, that the Senate should proceed today with the hearing about TERB procedures even though TERB is not presen= t. She stated that for her that May 11 board meeting hearing in which Daniel Finkenthal is being brought up on unprofessional conduct for his actions to= try and expose some of these irregularities makes this hearing today necessary.= Shannon stated that Daniel is acting for all facult= y to try and bring to light some serious problems related to TERB and that the Senate needs to go to the board meeting with some sort of statement. She stated that Barb Kelber did in= dicate at the board meeting that the Senate would do an investigation of TERB and = that going beyond May 11th may put Daniel in jeopardy and is not serving the interests of faculty.

<= /span>

Bonnie stated that= we probably will not go beyond May 11 and several recommendations that are bei= ng made by the committee addresses some of the concerns Dr. Finkenthal has bro= ught forward. She added that when the Senate hears the report from the committee then possibly at next Monday’s meeting there will be some action item= s. She also added that she did not have an opinion on TERB prior to being on t= he Task Force. She reminded those present that this is not a hearing on a particular individual and that this is not the same as what has took place = the past few weeks. This is the Senate listening to concerns brought forward by some colleagues that may be true or not true, what happened to them individually is not the point, the issues are related to the TERB procedure= and protecting the interest of all faculty. The Professional Procedures has been asked as a committee to look at the procedure and to look at the law so it = is reporting on issues it has identified. Therefore, the committee is giving a critique, a report, of issues that have surfaced as a result of looking at = TERB.

She stated that sh= e felt that we should not adjourn the meeting today, that we need to continue so t= he report and discussion can be a part of the record. One of the recommendatio= ns that will come out of this report is that a review of TERB is going to take= time probably into next year. One of the important things is to have the next TE= RB Coordinator involved, to have the board involved, to have the Vice Presiden= t of Instruction involved, and perhaps we need to have the next President involv= ed. This is going to take a while to resolve.

<= /span>

Bonnie voiced conc= ern about statements that the Vice President for Human Resources is going to be involved with TERB when TERB is clearly an academic and professional matter= . She is concerned that the decision= to move TERB from V.P. Instruction to V.P. Human Resources without any dialogu= e or agreement is inappropriate. S= he also stated that it is her understanding of the tentative agreement between= the district and PFF, that the agreement with the union and the district is rel= ated to the evaluations, not the policy and procedure of TERB. Policy and proced= ure is an academic and professional matter and therefore the board needs to look towards the Senate. Bonnie reiterated that this is a Faculty Senate issue, = the Senate needs to take TERB back. She feels that the Senate has lost TERB ove= r the past few years perhaps as a result of leadership changes, perhaps through s= ome of our own ignorance, naivety, whatever it might be, which is why the commi= ttee is trying to give its report. The outcome may be that the procedures need to be clarified and some of the iss= ues related to Dr. Finkenthal’s and others’ concerns will be suppor= ted in the committee’s report as a result of reviewing the procedures.

<= /span>

Sara indicated tha= t she was under the impression this would be information brought forward to us ab= out the procedures of TERB and some of the irregularities that people have brou= ght up. She added that she was never under the impression that it was a hearing= of any individual or of the board itself. If that is what it is she asked Bonn= ie to take over the meeting. Sara said that if today’s session is going = to be a discussion of the procedures then she could continue in this role of c= hairing the meeting. She added that she felt it was astounding that absolutely no questioning of whether everything that is being reported and that is being reported is stated accurately. She also felt that Dan Finkenthal’s hearing next week depends on the Senate finding out if everything was corru= pt in TERB. There are other issues involved and if we want to talk about unprofessional behavior and bringing somebody before the Senate we can alwa= ys do that without breaking the confidentiality of the Faculty Hiring Process.= We can make it personal or we can make it procedural, and she would prefer to = keep it procedural.

<= /span>

Barb Kelber stated= that she did say to the Governing Board when they were pressing Berta Cuaron abo= ut a report asking her to respond to specific allegations and all the rumors, gossip, accusations, that the Senate will be gathering information about th= is issue, that it is an academic and professional matter, and we will report on it. She added that she recommended to Berta Cuaron that she might want to s= peak to her or another faculty member so that this could be a report that comes = with that recognition, that this is an academic and professional matter – = it is not her purview alone to respond. Dr. Amador had recommended that she not make a report and legal counsel had suggested that she take that position. = At this point the district is maneuvering in whatever way to avoid a report, to protect issues relating to the report, or simply not to make a report. It is unclear what they are planning. But it can’t be about what they’= ;re going to do; it has to be what we as faculty will be a= ble to say. Based on this information relating to TERB, she is concerned that TERB= is not here today. She also stat= ed that it is probably better that the two Senators that sit on TERB had to le= ave because for them to bear the brunt of representing TERB to the Senate is unfair. She stated that in fact, the person who should make a report to the Governing Board on TERB is our TERB Coordinator, but she cannot do it becau= se of how she is situated in relation to these issues. We need someone to stand up and say something for the faculty. Barb reported that she has indicated that she would speak to the boa= rd and administration on behalf of faculty on this issue. It might be that we = say that our Tenure & Evaluations Policies and Procedures are in disarray a= nd our coordinator cannot speak to you because of the allegations against her.=

<= /span>

Anne Hohman stated= that regarding Sara’s reference to breaking the confidentiality of the Hir= ing Process, that is an allusion that has no meaning whatsoever to her, and for her that’s a problem that everyone = is not working with the same knowledge base.

<= /span>

Sara replied that = it came out of the board meeting and it can be heard by listening to the audio tape of that meeting.

<= /span>

There was brief me= ntion of the April 13^th Governing Board meeting where a faculty member used as part of his discussion a Faculty Hiring Committee involving Dental Assisting. Shannon Lienhart interjected that this is not an appropriate iss= ue to discuss without the faculty member in question being present.=

<= /span>

Anne Hohman also a= dded that as a result of the Faculty Council meeting, Sara had a pre-formed conception of how this discussion will go, where it will go, and where it w= ill not go. And all the council members likewise, it appears. She stated that w= hen she was Faculty President the council’s job was to plan parties, and = that was only three years ago. She added that she gets real annoyed that there h= as been some kind of discussion about “whatever” and that she̵= 7;s not operating with the same knowledge base. She is delighted to hear the re= port of the Professional Procedures Committee and thanked them very much for the= ir work under very difficult circumstances; however, she stated that she will = not be bound to discuss this issue in any one constrained way, especially since= it appears that the decision to discuss this TERB issue is pre-formed a little bit. She stated that she finds that uncomfortable and that she will not be bound to that sort of discussion.

<= /span>

Monika added that = with all do respect to Sara and her position on the Senate, innuendos have no ro= om whether it is in the Senate in discussions, or wherever. If there is anythi= ng that needs to be said, Monika feels it should be said openly.

<= /span>

She stated that co= pies of her evaluation are available to Sara if she would like to look at it. She added that she appreciates the work the committee has done and that it is v= ery important to bring it forward the way you do it because it finally puts it = back where it belongs. That does not mean that she is going to sit here after th= ree years of fighting in some way or other for a fair hearing that she would ju= st sit here and say nothing. She stated that she has a right in the Senate to = say what she has to say concerning those issues and will not let anyone, whether it’s the council or a Senator, say no you cannot.

Motion 11&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; MSC Dowd, Drinan: To extend the meeting until 3:50 p.m.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika Brannick provided copies of the following statement to the Senate and stated that she stands for every word in it. If Senators need more information she= has her folder and will have it with her in her office and they are welcome to = look through it.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Steve Spear interjected that he recommends that everyone read Article 17, which i= s related to faculty Evaluations. In Section J it is really specific about the relationship between the Senate and the Federation and the District and as Bonnie has alluded to quite clearly, that procedures and forms are definite= ly an academic and professional matter. But it’s a little different than= we do things now. The other thing he asked Senators to consider is in Section N which describes a Peer Review Committee. He added that some things are significantly different than the way we do it now. He stated that he didn’t see the point in arguing about the way we do things now if we = know things are going to change. He recommended that Senators read that document= as well as what’s in the Faculty Manual. Copies are included in the prop= osed contract and can be obtained from Human Resources.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sue Norton added that as a committee they worked very hard to go through all of these and as a former member of TERB she never realized the inconsistencies that existed and she feels very strongly that before the Senate goes further and “blames” anyone, we need to look through some of these thin= gs. Those Senators that have not read all of this may not be aware of many of t= he inconsistencies and how different evaluations are for different members of = the faculty and different classifications of faculty. We are ultimately reporta= ble to the President rather than the Vice President of Instruction. She added t= hat there is one part that states, “the V.P. for Instruction or that V.P.’s Designee as Co-Chair of the TERB.” We need to really rev= iew these statements and work very hard and we need to work as soon as possible= to correct all of these inconsistencies. Until we do, we’re not going to solve a lot of problems that have arisen. She stated that she felt that man= y of the reasons these problems have arisen, not all of them, have come from what has come here. She added that in reference to what Sara said earlier she fe= lt that she was referring to something that was stated at a public meeting and= for those who were at that board meeting we are aware of what she meant. It is = hard for us to know exactly what complete truth is and what some truth is. We ne= ed to really look carefully and start with what we have gathered here.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Rocco added that he agreed that people should read Article 17, but it means nothi= ng until a contract is in place and that is important for everyone to keep in mind. There is no telling when that will happen and in the meantime people = are getting evaluated so it is of the utmost importance that we talk about what= the situation is now. He indicated that he wanted to respond to what Anne Hohman said earlier because he had a different concept of the council meeting. He = also stated that he was surprised to hear Sara’s statement about where it might go and her thinking we were talking about one specific thing. He stat= ed that his memory of the council meeting was that there would be a presentati= on of the report and then whatever the action the Senate saw fit to take would then happen. There would be discussion after this report and we wouldn̵= 7;t know where it would go. Barb made it very clear that she did not want allegations to remain at the implications stage and that we would need to t= alk specifically about this. She stated that she thought that was very clear in council, and I don’t think that there was any predetermined way of ho= w we would handle this. I always expected that we would have an open discussion about what will be done with the information in this report and what kind of action we would like to take or motions we want to make.<= /p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; In response to a question about whether Tenure & Evaluations are being negotiated as part of their contract, Mary Ann Drinan indicated that they a= re in negotiations and that a tentative agreement is in place. But what it doe= s is to give greater force to any kind of changes that might be desired with reg= ard to the tenure process and the standards of performance. She stated that it = must go through TERB and probably could go through the Senate, but if there are = any changes that need to be made in terms of the standards then we negotiate th= ose with the district. A process has been established that is essentially what = it is today, except that the Senate by itself cannot make changes with regard = to how faculty evaluations occur. You make recommendations and then the negotiations team will meet with the district to discuss them. Some of the procedures have also been set up with regard to how things move through the evaluation process, including one major change with regard to probationary faculty having the ability to challenge anyone who is appointed to serve on their committee. Sometimes there are issues that develop or could develop a= nd then a probationary faculty member is laced into that committee that curren= tly was decided for them. So they can challenge and there can be a replacement – they can make a suggestion with regard to someone who is on their committee. Essentially everything else is virtually the same.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Sara Thompson apologized to Shannon Lienhart for her earlier statements. She sta= ted that she should not have spoken like that, and because she has reasons for speaking the way she did, she then chose to recuse herself from this meetin= g. She stated that before she recuses herself, in addition to what the committ= ee has created for guidelines and Bonnie’s statement, there is also a le= tter from Anne Voth which she requested be included in these minutes. She asked Bonnie Dowd to take over the meeting.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Monika stated that she would read her statement after she spoke about a few things. She stated that although she appreciates being able to talk about the procedures and the process, TERB has worked. She is unaware that there has = ever been a problem like hers, or like Daniel Finkenthal’s before. If the Senate would have picked up this issue earlier maybe Dr. Finkenthal would n= ot be in front of the board now. That is her biggest concern. She then read her statement:

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; May 3, 2004

STATEMENT TO THE FACULTY SENATE=

from MONIKA BRANNICK

1.I was concerned about my Pe= er Evaluation process from the beginning, and I communicated this to my Depart= ment Chair (see attachment #1). According to the Faculty Manual (p. 74), probationary faculty have t= he right to: “. . . challe= nge either the randomly selected faculty member or the faculty member selected = by the department/program by the deadline indicated …” While there is no such entry= for tenured faculty, it is common practice on campus, and also in my department, that full-time faculty have input into the make up of their Peer Evaluation committee.

2.The Faculty Manual also states:<= o:p>

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; a. (pg. 77, D 3) “Each committee member shall: Criti= cally review the required and supporting materials.”

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; b.(pg. 78, G) = “The evaluee will have access to all information used in the evaluation process.”

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; c. (pg. 78, F 4)“… The pe= er review committee must receive this information by the

= ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; deadline indicated in the Evaluations Calendar.”

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; According to the Evaluations Calendar, the deadline for material to be submitted to be included in any evaluation was December 10, 2001. The Department Chair wrote and sub= mitted a letter to the Chair of my committee, which was not presented to the other member of my committee or to me until the end of January 2002. Nei= ther of us had access to that material. Without the consultation of the other committee member, the Chair of= my committee had drafted the evaluation report saying that my evaluation was substandard based upon this letter

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 3. Only the Chair of my committee all= egedly received the letter in a timely fashion.&n= bsp; The other committee member did not.= According to the Faculty Manual (pg. 82, B 12), one of the duties of= the TERB coordinator is “ monitoring the progress of all peer review committees.”

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 4.The Faculty Manual (pg. 77, C 4) under the duties of the Peer Review Committee Chairperson states: “Wr= ite the evaluation report only afte= r consultation with the members of the Peer Review Committee. “ The Chair of my committee wrote the report by himself and then presented it to the other member of my committee= .

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 5.According to the Faculty Manual (pg. 78, F 5), “if in the judgment of the division dean, inconsistencies appe= ar in the evaluation materials, then the evaluation must be referred back to t= he peer review committee for clarification and reconsideration. “ It fur= ther states: “If in the judg= ment of the division dean or the committee, issues remain, then the evaluation w= ill be referred to the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board for mediation.” The Divisio= n Dean refused to refer my evaluation, even after I submitted a formal protest. The Chair of my committee also ref= used to refer my evaluation, even though there was disagreement about the written report between the Chair and the other committee member.<= /p>

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 6.According to the Faculty Manual (pg. 78, G) “The evaluee may initiate due proce= ss proceedings at any time.” I initiated due process against my Department Chair, the Chair of my committe= e, and the Division Dean, and I was denied all three of them.

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

7. I did indeed attempt to protest these irregularities in my evaluation. On February 27, 2002, together with a witne= ss, I submitted three letters of support as part of my rebuttal to be included in= my evaluation to the TERB office (see attachment #2).

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; * These letters never appeared in my evaluation file.

* Not one of the members of TERB ever saw these letters, and moreover, not one me= mber of TERB nor the TERB coordinator seems to know where these letters are.

* When I directly asked the TERB coordinator to p= lace these letters into my file, my request was denied, pointing out to me that these letters were submitted too late. (see attachment #3)

Since I had no knowledge of the letter written by my Department Chair that was included in my evaluation until the end of January, after the deadline, the= re was no way I could have submitted my letters by the deadline.

= &nb= sp; = 8.I received the completed packet of my evaluation after the summer break in the beginning of September 2002. A letter, written by the TERB Coordinator, was included in this packet. The Faculty Manual does not allow = for this, and when I directly asked the TERB Coordinator, where in the Faculty Manual this was allowed, the response was that she had done so with the approval of the V.P. of Human Resources.&n= bsp; Furthermore, I was told that I should direct any further questions to that V.P. (see attachment #3)

9.I attempted one more time to clear up all these irregularities, and I address= ed my concerns to the TERB directly. I wrote three letters to each of the members of TERB and the Coordinator. I did not receive one response to any of these letters from the TERB members. I only received emails (attachment= # 3, 4) from the TERB coordinator in which she stated again that I should direct= any further questions, regarding my evaluation, from now on to the V.P. of Human Resources.

= ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; 10.I appealed to each of the TERB members to be allowed = to come before the Board with my concerns.&nb= sp; I did not receive any response except for an email from the Coordina= tor stating that TERB does not hear any concerns regarding any evaluations, unl= ess the evaluation is substandard. The Faculty Manual does not say anywhere that TERB only hears concerns in these cases. It states (pg. 81, B): “The Tenure and Evaluations = Review Board meets twice a month to discuss … and to consider problems, complaints, and concerns of faculty.” Moreover, the Faculty Manual state= s (pg. 82, C): “At least six m= embers and the Tenure and Evaluations Review Board Coordinator must be present if decisions regarding tenure or evaluat= ion reports are to be made.” Yet all decisions regarding my evaluation were made by the TERB coordinator alo= ne.

In Summary:

1. &= nbsp; VP of Human Resources and the Palomar College President denied academic due process.

2. &= nbsp; The Division Dean did not refer my evaluation to anyone.

3. &= nbsp; The Peer Evaluation Committee Chair

* did not recuse himself when I asked him to do s= o

* did not consult with the other member of my com= mittee

* did not allow access to the other member of my committee to all material to be = used in the evaluation

* did not consult when writing the report.

4.&n= bsp; = ; The TERB coordinator

* failed to monitor my Peer Evaluation progress

* did not call TERB meetings

* did not allow me access to TERB

* did not allow my letters of support to be place= d into my evaluation

* wrote and attached a letter to my evaluation though the Faculty Manual does not a= llow this

5.Finally, the TERB coordinat= or reiterates again and again (senate minutes Dec. 17, 2003) that she is “not involved in any individual evaluation, but according to (attachment # 5), it is clear that she was involved in my evaluation together with her husband, who has since become the Faculty Sena= te President.

On behalf of all faculty, I ask the Faculty Senate to pass a motion that states that irregularities occurred in my evaluation due to human agency and that = the Senate will work to insure that this does not happen again to anyone. Moreover, I asked the Senate to ho= ld all members of TERB to the highest standards and to protect faculty members and= the evaluation process.

Motion 12 &= nbsp; &nbs= p; MSC Versaci, Levy: To extend the meeting until 4:05 p.m.

<= /span>

= &nb= sp; = As mentioned earlier in the meeting, the following letter was provided to the Faculty Senate by Anne Voth:

May 3, 2004

TO: &n= bsp; Faculty Senate

FROM:&nb= sp; Anne Voth

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = TERB Coordinator

SUBJ: = Thoughts on Changes to TERB Procedures

Many questions, concerns, complaints and suggested changes concerning TERB procedures have surfaced this year and I’d ju= st like to share a few thoughts with you on these matters prior to your discus= sion of these matters at the Faculty Senate on May 3^rd. These procedures, with minor adjus= tments have been in place for 15 years and have worked very well for literally thousands of evaluations. Thu= s any changes should not be undertaken lightly and should be fully discussed by t= he Faculty Senate, PFF and TERB prior to their submission to the District for negotiations. There have been significant changes over the years to the actual evaluation forms themselve= s. In the proposed contract, section “J”, the forms used in 2000-2= 001 (with their included stated procedures) will be binding until re-negotiated= by PFF.

1. a matter of = Past Practice and because authority is not specifically given to TERB in these matters, TERB has never exercised jurisdiction over evaluations (or complai= nts thereof) that receive an overall rating of “High Professional Performance” or “Standard Professional Performance”. In fact, the Faculty Manual states explicitly over which evaluations TERB has jurisdiction. If anyone has a concern about their specific evaluation with s= uch a rating, they have been referred to the procedures defined in “Acade= mic Due Process”.

Also, if the faculty wishes that TERB examine all evaluations under some specific set of guidelines, that could certainly be worked out.<= /span>

If faculty wish to change these procedures so tha= t any individual may come to TERB even if they have received a “Standard Professional Performance” or “High Professional PerformanceR= 21;, then that would certainly be possible if that is what is desired by all parties.

2. Currently TE= RB does not have the authority to alter, change, or order a re-review of any evaluation. We can only valid= ate that the established processes have been followed. Currently, any such chan= ges are conducted within the Peer/Tenure Committee.

Again, if the faculty wishes to change this proce= dure, it is certainly within their authority to propose such a change.=

3. Currently, t= here is no requirement that whenever a specific evaluation is being discussed by= any Tenure Evaluations Committee, Peer Review Committee or TERB, that the evalu= atee must be present for the discussion although they certainly may be present.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This arrangement is carried forth = into the proposed contract (see section “M” and “N”). Ag= ain, if the faculty wishes pre-notification and/or PFF representation, such shou= ld be proposed.

4. We have no established procedure on= how to handle a situation wherein a faculty member declines to be evaluated. Since evaluation is required by= law and contract, a specific procedure should be developed.

5. Currently, if there are significant delays wherein tenure and peer committees have not returned forms in a timely manner, the TERB Coordinator reminds them several times as tactfully as possible to return the forms. In a fair number of cases each sem= ester, when the delays are significant, the TERB Coordinator asks the appropriate = dean for help in getting the forms returned.&nb= sp; If the faculty can think of some other way or procedure to have the forms returned in a timely manner, future TERB Coordinators would appreciate it, I am sure.

6. There is some confusion under section A , Tenure and Evaluations Review Board (2000-2001 Faculty Manual, p. 81). As past practice for the last 15 years, the phrase “…initiate experiments, to refine and improve the evaluation process, and to consider problems, complaints and concerns of the faculty&#= 8221; has always been taken to mean that TERB should consider the broad picture a= nd process and this phrase has never been taken to refer to problems with any individual evaluation. If the Senate, PFF and TERB wish to change this past practice, then they should of= ficially propose such a change.

7. The TERB Coordinator currently reports administratively through the Vice President of Instruction to the President= of the College. If the faculty w= ishes to change this current relationship, they should develop a proposal to do t= hat.

8. Since it has worked so well in the past, TERB currently rolls over the evaluations calen= dar each year to match as closely as possible the previous year’s calendar. If some more formal permanent calendar is desired, it could easily be proposed. The proposed contract says that the calendar is “advisory only” (see section= N).

9. Currently, t= here is no mechanism for a tenured faculty member to challenge a member of the p= eer committee. However, this matt= er has been addressed in Article 17 of the proposed PFF contract with the district (see section N).

10. There us some concern about additional materials submitted by persons with “signifi= cant personal experience”, such as a department chair. The proposed contract is silent on= this matter as near as I can tell. However, the Dean or Vice President may submit observations/recommendations which will be part of the permanent record.

11. The proposed contract says that evaluations are not grievable (section “O”). Whether or = not a specific concern an individual faculty member has about his/her evaluation = may be subject to Academic Due Process, I do not know.

12. There certai= nly needs to be a joint meeting with representatives from TERB, PFF and the Fac= ulty Senate to clarify the specific role each plays in the evaluations process.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Currently, TERB is the body that proposes changes to the process which must then be approved by the Senate before going to the Board.

The semester is rapidly drawing to a close. There will soon be a new Faculty S= enate, a new TERB board, a new TERB coordinator, a new Vice President of Human Resources and a new College President.&nbs= p; These people, with the Palomar Faculty Federation, should probably establish a joint task force to examine all aspects of the process so that = the next time contract negotiations come around, we can have a Tenure and Evaluations process that satisfies all of our needs and is very clearly wri= tten so that confusion and misunderstanding are minimized.

After being called upon to make her statement, Shannon Lienhart first apologized = to Sara for her earlier comments. She then read the following statement:<= /o:p>

The Faculty Senate jointly appoints (along with the President/Superintendent) a TERB Coordinator. In so doing, they trust that he/she will act in good faith to uphold board polici= es, consult with the Faculty Senate regarding possible changes to current pract= ice, advocate for faculty rights, and act in a fair, unbiased, and democratic manner.

<= /p>

Without consultation with the Faculty Senate, PFF, or the members of TERB, the curr= ent TERB Coordinator entered into a private agreement with the Vice President of Instruction declaring that TERB no longer needed to meet. This agreement was not communicated to the Faculty Senate, the PFF, nor the members of TERB un= til after faculty members began questioning why TERB was not meeting. The off-the-record understanding that was made between the TERB Coordinator and= the Vice President of Instruction to discontinue TERB meetings was further obsc= ured from public knowledge by the TERB Coordinator’s continued publishing = of documents that gave the impression that TERB was meeting as stipulated in t= he Faculty Manual. The TERB Coordinator’s actions on this matter are not only a violation of board policy, but also a violation of the faculty’= ;s trust that she would act as an advocate for faculty rights.

TERB did not meet for fifteen months despite the fact that faculty members asked= to speak to TERB because they had concerns. When Monika Brannick asked to spea= k to TERB, she was told to take the matter up with the Vice President of Human Resources. Monika Brannick was denied access to voice her concerns to a democratic body of her peers.

On three separate occasions I asked to be placed on the TERB agenda. The TERB Coordinator did not respond to, or acknowledge the first two requests. It w= as not until I wrote to the entire Board demanding that they meet and hear my concerns did TERB finally convene on Feb. 9^th. Even then, my age= nda iten did not appear on the TERB agenda. I have repeatedly asked to have my = item placed on the agenda only to have those requests ignored by the TERG Coordinator. Finally, at the request of another member of TERB, the TERB Coordinator agreed to place my agenda item on the May 3^rd TERB agenda – a full 3 ½ months after my first request. The TERB Coordinator has placed a five-minute time limit for me to address her conce= rn.

The TERB Coordinator has repeatedly denied access for faculty members to address TERB. She has done so by discontinuing meetings, stonewalling faculty member’s requests, and controlling the agenda. The TERB Coordinator h= as not only violated Board Policy but she has violated state open meeting laws= and the trust of the faculty. She has not behaved in an open, democratic, and unbiased manner as we, as faculty members, have every right to expect from = our elected and appointed representatives.

Using appointed position and non-public knowledge to pursue personal agenda.

<= /p>

We, as faculty members, have a right to expect that our tenure and evaluation and review process is free f= rom tampering by those who hold personal grudges against us.<= /i>

<= /p>
The TERB Coordinator used her position and her access to individual evaluations= and non-public knowledge to pursue personal vendettas she had against individual faculty members. Despite the fact that the Faculty Manual clearly states th= at at least six members of TERB must be present if any decision is to be made regarding an individual’s evaluation, the TERB Coordinator repeatedly made unilateral decisions on the evaluations of both Monika Brannick and Da= niel Finkenthal.

<= /p>
Decisions made by the TERB Coordinator that should have been made by TERB

<= /p>
·      =     Letters that Monika submitted as pa= rt of her rebuttal would not be included in Monika’s evaluation packet.<= o:p>

·      =     The TERB Coordinator’s letter would be admitted into the evaluation packet.

·      =     Deny Monika’s request to speak before TERB.

·      =     Refer Monika to the Vice President = of Human Resources.

·      =     Consult with Dean Rourke about Daniel’s peer committee composition. (This discussion occurred at the same time that the TERB Coordinator had an ongoing investigation of a sexual discrimination against Daniel. Ultimately, Daniel ended up receiving a lett= er of reprimand for not having his peer committee composition submitted on tim= e.)

These violations of board policy are significant as they represent malicious acti= ons against individual faculty members. This is not only a violation of our rig= hts to have decisions discussed and voted on by an elected body, but is morally reprehensible.

Are these violations mistakes, misunderstandings, or malice?

How does one determine intent? How can one distinguish between a simple miscommunication or misunderstanding from acts of intentional manipulation = and malice?

The distinction is important as it speaks to the actions that the Senate takes = in regards to this situation.

If a child comes to school with a broken arm and states that he fell down the stairs, we believe him. But, when that same child repeatedly arrives at sch= ool with bruises and cuts and broken bones, we must begin to suspect a different kind of story. I content that intent can be established by observing a patt= ern. If we stood before you today with one violation, you could reasonably concl= ude that a simple misunderstanding had occurred. But, we stand here today with a story of a pattern of behavior. For you to look the other way, when it is y= our duty to uphold faculty rights and the rights of individual faculty members, would be irresponsible. If you do not acknowledge malfeasance, then you are setting precedence that these actions and this behavior is okay.=

What outcomes I would like to have happen from this hearing.

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>1.&n= bsp;       An increased awareness of the responsibility that faculty senators have to hold those they appoint accountable for their actions.

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>2.&n= bsp;       A commitment to listening to faculty when they raise concerns about the actions of elected or appointed representatives.

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>3.&n= bsp;       A commitment to giving faculty the opportunity to address these concerns in an open meeting.=

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>4.&n= bsp;       Revisions to the faculty constituti= on (or manual?) that include a statement of ethical conduct for elected and appointed representatives.

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>5.&n= bsp;       Revisions to the faculty constituti= on (or manual?) that include a means by which an elected or appointed representative can be removed from their position.

=

But, most of all…<= /o:p>

I believe the faculty senate has the responsibility to produce a report at th= e May 11^th Governing Board meeting stating that the Faculty Senate has found substantial and important inconsistencies in the management of the te= nure evaluations process over the last three years. The Senate is now dealing wi= th these issues in a positive manner but would like to acknowledge the fact th= at it was due, in large part, to Daniel Finkenthal’s efforts (which he is now on trial for), that these problems have been exposed and can be remedie= d.

MaryAnn Drinan stated that there are so many details here with regard to the irregularities and inconsistencies that this is something we really serious= ly have to consider. There is only one statement that we might want to question and that is in regard to letters, for instance Monika’s statement that the TERB Coordinator did not allow letters of support to be placed in her evaluation. She states that the reason it would be the only one she would question is that when Jack Miyamoto was here he indicated that he used his = own discretion with regard to which items he places in files.=

Monika interjected that Anne does state it in an email to her why those letters we= re not put in her file, and that she has all that information.

MaryAnn added that with many of the details the prescriptions in the procedures are clear. When it comes down to the actual details with regard to how the proc= ess moves forward, who was involved, and what must be done at what point. She stated that she also looked it up in the board policy with regard to proced= ures and policies and noticed a few variations but all of the items that Monika = has brought forward and all of the inconsistencies are specifically addressed so you cannot really say you’re not sure what procedure to follow because the procedures are spelled out clearly with regard to these areas.

Bonnie asked that all those individuals submitting statements to the senate please= do so by providing both an electronic and hard copy.

Doug asked to address issues related to two specific individuals’ evaluati= ons that were questioned as well as some of the specific things. He stated that= in terms of the information being brought to the committee by December 10, the= re has always been some question on that as to exactly where does it have to g= o in a timely manner because the real deadline is December 10. If a person submi= tted it to the committee on December 10 it might be difficult for that informati= on to be distributed to everyone involved on the same day. Usually what happen= s is that information comes to the chair and considered “in” and fil= ters down to committee members at some point. Another issue is not having Jim Daniels here to ask him about what happened and his point of view. He added that in terms of the question asked about involving a division dean in the process, it does say that if there are inconsistencies in the evaluation material that the dean has the right to refer it back and have it reviewed again or referring it back to the TERB. It’s if the dean sees what th= ey consider inconsistencies and that’s their decision. Another thing that happened specifically in Dr. Finkenthal’s evaluation is the statement that Dan had a letter from the dean that talked about the different issues there and that the dean was involved in that process. One of the problems in trying to resolve that is the fact that you didn’t really have a committee to begin with because the dates have passed and based on the information the TERB board received from the department chair that Dan was = not cooperating with evaluation processes and was not intending to be evaluated= . He stated that in terms of the part of the Faculty Manual that refers to getti= ng a hold of the committee, there was no committee to get a hold of at that poin= t. He stated that he felt it is not unreasonable in terms of Dan’s evaluation to actually get a hold of the dean if you have not been able to = get the individual to turn items in, if there’s no committee to ask, if you’ve dealt with the department chair and that has not worked. I don’t know what else the person has to do other than simply follow the chain of command and at that point involve the dean.

Motion 13        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;         MSC Brannick, Lutz: To extend the meeting until 4:10 p.m.

=

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Doug Key stated that in reference to Monika’s statement regarding her initiating due process through the department chair, the chair of the committee, as well as the division dean and was denied by all three of them= , he stated that he thinks that by her saying she was denied by all three of them isn’t a totally accurate statement. In the case of the department cha= ir it went ahead, proceeded, and an ombudsperson was agreed to by the two peop= le.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika questioned how he knew that information and Doug responded it was because of information that she had provided.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika stated that she never stated anything about her grievance.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Doug continued that at that point because some things were not following procedu= re it was eventually stopped but it did get started.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika again stated that she never mentioned anything about her grievances. She as= ked Doug to provide information on how he received that information.=

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Doug stated that it was information that is not particular to the content of her grievance.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Doug also stated that in relation to the appeal to TERB, this came several months after the evaluation had been done and that makes it much more difficult to seek approval of those statements.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Sara Thompson referred to item #1 of Monika’s statement referring to the V= ice President of Human Resources and the Palomar College President denying acad= emic due process. She asked for clarification from Monika on where in her statem= ent she discusses the President.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika responded that grievances go naturally through the president of the college= .

Sara responded that she already opened the issue of her grievance. This was not addressed in TERB.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika questioned what grievance, that she filed three grievances and filed three hearings.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Sara stated that in her statement there the summary is usually a summary of a statement, and in the statement there is nothing that addresses the preside= nt of the college.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika clarified that she has filed a grievance against her department chair, agai= nst the chair of her peer evaluation committee, and against the dean.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Sara apologized for misreading the document.

Motion 14  &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp; MSC Versaci, Brannick: To extend the meeting until 4:15 p.m.<= /p>

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Rocco Versaci asked to go back to Doug’s reference of the December 10 deadl= ine. He stated that that incident for him crystallizes everything that is wrong = with what’s going on here. We have a letter come up supposedly before the deadline. It’s not brought to the attention of the evaluee or one mem= ber of the committee until late January. If we’re dealing with a collegial process here and where there is a spirit of goodwill behind everything, that letter is not held on to until the last minute and then delivered a month later, no matter what the deadline is. If there is a TERB Coordinator in th= ere who is acting in a collegial manner it is brought before the board and ther= e is discussion about extenuating circumstances regarding a letter that was a criticism of Monika that was given to her long after she had any chance to respond. That is not right and there is human agency behind there. It’= ;s not a simple breakdown of procedure – there are people involved in th= ese decisions and that is what I can’t abide by – because it’s happening not just in this one incident but in other places in these evaluations. That is something we need to call attention to and discuss it = in a real manner without trying to protect people.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Monika stated that if the procedure is that loose, then it has to work for all of = us. She stated that she was held to every deadline there is and she was denied everything she tried to do. She added that regarding the timeline, she approached TERB immediately after she received her packet and saw the letter attached to it by the TERB Coordinator so she started the whole process aga= in. She left it in May because she was leaving the country and she picked it up right in the first days of September.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Bonnie intervened stating that because of the lack of a quorum the meeting was adjourned.

ADJOURNED:  &n= bsp;            = ;       The meeting was adjourned at 4:= 12 p.m.

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Respectfully submitted,

    =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;      Bonnie Ann Dowd, Secretary

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;